[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] ARmv7: Add a soc_init hook to start.S

Mon Feb 2 20:26:31 CET 2015

+Bin

Hi Tom,

On 2 February 2015 at 11:56, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 03:14:35PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On 31 January 2015 at 14:49, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:25:50PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > > > Hello Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:23:47 -0500, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:32:41PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 26-01-15 16:18, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > >On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:54:12AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > > >>Hi,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>On 22-01-15 22:03, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > >>>On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 08:10:06PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>Hi,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>On 22-01-15 17:20, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 09:03:25PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>On some SoCs / ARMv7 CPU cores we need to do some setup before enabling the
> > > > > > >>>>>>icache, etc. Add a soc_init hook with a weak default which just calls
> > > > > > >>>>>>cpu_init_cp15.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>This way different implementations can be provided to do some extra work
> > > > > > >>>>>>before or after cpu_init_cp15, or completely replacing cpu_init_cp15.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>---
> > > > > > >>>>>>  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > > >>>>>>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S
> > > > > > >>>>>>index fdc05b9..9882b20 100644
> > > > > > >>>>>>--- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S
> > > > > > >>>>>>+++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S
> > > > > > >>>>>>@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ reset:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>    /* the mask ROM code should have PLL and others stable */
> > > > > > >>>>>>  #ifndef CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT
> > > > > > >>>>>>-   bl      cpu_init_cp15
> > > > > > >>>>>>+   bl      soc_init
> > > > > > >>>>>>    bl      cpu_init_crit
> > > > > > >>>>>>  #endif
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>I like the direction here.  And I want to make sure I get the sunxi
> > > > > > >>>>>direction right here too (as I agree with the need / desire for boot0 +
> > > > > > >>>>>U-Boot to be a valid combination).  I think we can take this a step
> > > > > > >>>>>farther.  cpu_init_crit (on armv7) is basically a call to s_init().
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>For am33xx (and I bet but need to do and test omap3+) we can, with
> > > > > > >>>>>Simon's patch to let us move stack to DDR a tiny bit later, in the SPL
> > > > > > >>>>>case make s_init empty, which just leaves us with (with your patch)
> > > > > > >>>>>soc_init.  Is there some way we can put all of this together in a
> > > > > > >>>>>function?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>You mean essentially call s_init here and have s_init call cpu_init_cp15
> > > > > > >>>>I guess we could do that, but it would require auditing all existing armv7
> > > > > > >>>>users of s_init. This may require me to rethink how / when I do timer &
> > > > > > >>>>gpio init etc. for u-boot.bin on sunxi, but that should not be a (big)
> > > > > > >>>>problem.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Basically.  From my first pass audit of s_init, it's either empty
> > > > > > >>>(Kona), sunxi, or omap/etc so I get to deal with it.  And the default
> > > > > > >>>soc_init would just be the call to cpu_init_cp15 as you have it and we
> > > > > > >>>drop the lowlevel_init hurdles.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Ok, so what you're suggesting is a patch which:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>1) Changes:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>#ifndef CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT
> > > > > > >>        bl      cpu_init_cp15
> > > > > > >>        bl      cpu_init_crit
> > > > > > >>#endif
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Into:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>#ifndef CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT
> > > > > > >>        bl      lowlevel_init
> > > > > > >>#endif
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Which will setup the stack and then call the s_init C function
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>2) Adds a weak default s_init which calls cpu_init_cp15
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>3) Patch all existing s_init functions to call cpu_init_cp15
> > > > > > >>before doing anything else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Pretty close.  Simon's SPL DM series and related clean-ups got me
> > > > > > >thinking that yes, seemingly too much got shoved into "s_init" that
> > > > > > >really could have been done using an existing hook done slightly later.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>And then in follow up patches we can:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>4) Drop cpu_init_crit
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>5) Cleanup some s_init functions (this will be left to the individual
> > > > > > >>SoC maintainers)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>I think that is a good idea, Albert what do you think about this ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >So I'd like to see 5 done "soon" afterwards as it's me (omap*) and
> > > > > > >sunxi.  I think we can simplfy the call sequence too, to roughly:
> > > > > > >#ifndef CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT
> > > > > > >     ... Set up stack for C, it's just a few instrs
> > > > > > >     bl lowlevel_init
> > > > > > >#endif
> > > > > > >     bl _main
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >__weak asm
> > > > > > >lowlevel_init:
> > > > > > >   bl cpu_init_cp15
> > > > > > >   return to caller
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >And comment that anything called via lowlevel_init must be C-callable.
> > > > > > >I hope that once #5 is done no one actually has a lowlevel_init that's
> > > > > > >done in C but we've kept the door open should it be needed down the
> > > > > > >road (as I _think_ we can shuffle both the omap* and sunxi stuff to do
> > > > > > >their inits as needed in both SPL and full U-Boot from an early hook in
> > > > > > >board_init_r, top of my head is board_init calls some_other_func() in
> > > > > > >full U-Boot to ensure GPIOs, etc, on sunxi and spl_board_init() calls
> > > > > > >same func in SPL, and we can consolidate again further down the road as
> > > > > > >we get SPL and full U-Boot more in sync on the call chain).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good to me, and I'm fine with working the sunxi side of things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since you seem to have this all in your head can you do a patch for this
> > > > > > replacing my patchset ?
> > > > >
> > > > > I suppose that's what happens when you have a detailed plan, will do ;)
> > > >
> > > > I'll comment if the patch is out (going through my mail one at a time)
> > > > but I just want to chime in on C contexts: I'd rather have this done
> > > > only once and from crt0.S. If this means crt0.S must do the call to
> > > > lowlevel_init, then so be it IMO.
> > >
> > > This might be workable, yeah.  What I've decided after doing some of the
> > > work is that the rest of arm has cpu_init_crit and some callouts and I'm
> > > thinking that rather than make armv7 much different we should re-adjust
> > > things to fit back into the regular mold which I think is possible.
> > >
> > > Simon, do you think we could move arch_cpu_init up in the call sequence
> > > in common/board_f.c ?
> >
> > On x86 we set up early PCI then, since without that we cannot init the CPU.
> >
> > I suppose we could split it into two calls, but why do you want to
> > move it earlier?
>
> Wait, since we need it early, why would moving it up earlier in
> board_init_r() be a problem for x86?  And (and this is being split into
> different email threads, sigh), it would be good, possibly, if we have
> something that means "very early init things, but we can be written in
> C".

Do you mean board_init_f() or board_init_r()? I was talking about
board_init_f().

PCI gets inited twice on x86 (for some boards) - once before
relocation and one after.

Regards,
Simon